About Me

Monday, April 30, 2007

Sunday night at 7 we did baptisms. We told anyone and everyone in the audience that if they hadn't been baptized or if they had just accepted Christ, that this was the time to do it. We had 84 people come forward. A team of volunteers listened to their testimonies, and if there were questions or if they didn't have a clear testimony they were directed to a pastor. After they had given their testimony they went in and we did the baptisms during an extended worship time. I was priviledged to take photos of the event. I put together a little video of it all here:

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Around the end of February a dog showed up and decided to live on our back porch. It's a nice dog, but we didn't want a dog. A month later she gave birth to 10 puppies. So we went from the perfect number of dogs (0) to having 11 of them...

Sigh.

One of the puppies died early on, likely it was too small to get fed by mom. My dear wife buried it and now we are down to 10 dogs. While we really don't want any of these dogs, the puppies _are_ cute. We shot a little video of them, and you can see it here:

Be warned, this video is big, around 30MB. I didn't make it for online distribution, but people have asked to see the little guys. They are way more active now than they were in this video. They are actually a lot of fun.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

A friend of mine asked me a question recently, whether or not baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins. Most people who believe that it is focus on the words of Peter:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38 (All verses ESV)

This appears to be very clear, that you must be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, we have passages like John 3:16 that paint a different picture of salvation:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16

What appears to be important in John is simply the act of belief. Baptism is not mentioned. Proponents of this argument usually cite the thief on the cross as another proof that baptism is not necessary:

“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”” - Luke 23:39-43

This passage is very important to understanding the process of salvation. The words of Peter say to "Repent and be baptized" but the thief clearly didn't have the opportunity to be baptized and yet he was certainly saved. The words of Jesus in John 3 say that belief in him is what matters, but do not mention repentance, and yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who argues that only belief matters. Even the demons believe in God (James 2:9).

We need to be careful that we don't put too much stock in a single verse, but instead consider all of scripture if possible. The thief on the cross believed in Jesus, repented of his sins and was saved.

One way to look at this passage is as an extraordinary circumstance. Truly there was no way for this man to be baptized, nor to listen to a sermon, and he had a direct dispensation from the Lord Jesus Himself that he would be saved. But I think to do this is to ignore what the passage is meant to teach us.

In looking at this I think it's key to realize that the thief's action was a combination of Peter's exhortation to repent and Jesus' teaching that belief in the son leads to eternal life. It seems that the process of salvation is believe (in Jesus), repent (of your sins), and receive (the gift of forgiveness of sins and of the Holy Spirit).

There is little argument there, but that leaves us with the question of what Peter meant when he said "repent and be baptized" and I think this is where context becomes so critical. In verse 22 Peter addresses his audience, and that audience is "Men of Israel." This is a key point, because the entire system of Jewish law is about external action as evidence of internal state. The Jews show their allegiance to God by obeying the law. When speaking to Jews, Peter would need to explain what external action would represent their internal change of repentance, and this action was baptism.

I do not believe that Peter here is insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation, but rather that baptism is how you show that you have repented of your sins. For the thief on the cross this was not necessary because he had shown his repentance through his action (defending Jesus to the other thief), and it was not necessary that he do anything other than believe and repent.

Another key point is that baptism was viewed as a way of identifying yourself as a proselyte. Paul addresses this very topic in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 when he says that Jesus did not send him to baptize, but to preach. This was in the context of division in the church, and Paul was thankful that he hadn't baptized anyone because he didn't want them to have bragging rights.

It is interesting that Paul does not ever preach that you must be baptized in order to be saved (not sure about Romans 6. Maybe we'll come back to that later). In Romans Paul writes:

“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” - Romans 10:8-10

Paul's audience is not only Jewish (although it does include them). Paul was called to take the name of Christ to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15) who did not have the same emphasis on external signs of internal change. Thus Paul focused on belief in Christ, and then how one should act after professing that faith.

That does not mean that baptism is unimportant. Indeed Paul did baptize people, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 1:14 & 16, and Jesus Himself underwent baptism. Paul was baptized immediately after the scales fell from his eyes. The New Testament is filled with examples of people being baptized after confessing their faith in Christ. Let's not forget the "great commission" in Matthew:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Matthew 28:18-20

We would be remiss to ignore all of this evidence (and a direct command from Jesus Himself) and view the sacrament of baptism as unimportant. But it is not the waters of baptism that save, it is repentant faith in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ that offer salvation and forgiveness of sins.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Let me start by saying that we are blessed to have a plethora of translations available to us. The many talented translators of Wycliffe are working hard to bring ONE translation to people groups, and we have the luxury of choosing from many excellent translations...and a few bad ones :-)

Every translation is a compromise. Every single one. When translating ancient languages it is simply impossible to do a perfect job. A literal word for word translation is unreadable, and makes little sense in the target language (English). The other side is a highly interpretive translation like the NLT, or a paraphrase like the message or living bible which bears little resemblance to the original text.

What's the difference? A paraphrase does not seek to maintain the original text, but tries to convey the meaning of what the text is about. A translation seeks to translate the original languages into modern ones. The Message is a current popular paraphrase. The NIV, NASB, ESV and TNIV are all translations. The NLT is also a translation, but has more in common with the message than the NASB.

Rather than "proof text" and show you problem passages in various translations, I am going to work from a passage that I have translated myself. Psalms 19. I love this passage of scripture, but it's also a total bear to translate... Thus, there is lots of room for interpretation. I have tried to be as literal as possible in my translation. (I didn't include all of the Psalm 19, only the beginning)

Joel's Translation:The heavens (are) declaring the glory of God, the sky (is) proclaiming the work of Hishands. Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night declares knowledge. There is no speech and there are no words, their voice is not heard. Into all the earth their voice has gone out, and to the end of the world their words. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, so it is like a bridegroom coming out from his chamber, it rejoices like a mighty man to run the course.

Now let's compare this to the message, a paraphrase:

God’s glory is on tour in the skies, God-craft on exhibit across the horizon. Madame Day holds classes every morning, Professor Night lectures each evening. Their words aren’t heard, their voices aren’t recorded, But their silence fills the earth: unspoken truth is spoken everywhere.God makes a huge dome for the sun—a superdome! The morning sun’s a new husband leaping from his honeymoon bed, The daybreaking sun an athlete racing to the tape.(Psalms 19:1-5 MESSAGE)

You can see that Eugene Peterson has made the text come alive, but the text bears little relation to the original Hebrew. There are a lot of phrases and ideas that are not present in the original Hebrew text, but this is Eugene's interpretation of what this passage is trying to say.

Let's look at the other end of the spectrum, the NASB95:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.(Psalms 19:1-5 NAS95S)

You can see that the NASB is very similar to my translation, props to me :-) But seriously, where we differ they are likely right. In some cases there are simple word choice issues where we have chosen differently and both of us are right.

Now, let's look at the ESV:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above* proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line* goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.(Psalms 19:1-5 ESV)

The ESV makes the meaning of this passage a lot clearer than my translation or the NASB, and yet is seemingly faithful to the original Hebrew (more on this later).

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.(Psalms 19:1-5 NIV-G/K)

The NIV is very popular, but its language is not as modern as the ESV, and in many cases it is not as clear as the ESV either. This passage doesn't illustrate it well, but the big knock on the NIV is that it is more interpretive. But part of that is that their Greek translations are more interpretive, whereas their Hebrew translations are more literal. The big problem with this passage is the NIV language is a bit out of date.

Now, here's the NLT:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.”(Psalms 19:1-5 NLT-SE)

You can see how the NLT is far closer to the original than the Message, and yet still quite interpretive in how the words are translated. In many ways this is my favorite version of this passage.

Now here's where things get interesting. If you've been reading closely, you see there is a difference in interpretation, with the ESV

My translation:Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night declares knowledge.There is no speech and there are no words, their voice is not heard.

NASB:Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.

ESV:Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

In my translation, and the NASB's translation, there is no sound. There is no speech or words that express the speech and knowledge that day and night declare. The ESV looks at "pours out speech" and "not heard" as being contradictory, and therefore resolves them by changing the phrase to include their voice in every speech and language.

The problem is that the Hebrew does not support their conclusion, but it seems to make more sense their way. This is a case of the ESV team making an interpretive change to the text.

The NLT has changed "their measuring line" or "line" to message, which does not have Hebraic support either. Each of these translations has tried to clarify the passage, but have obscured the obscure meaning of the original text, and may have changed what the text is actually trying to say. That is the rub.

The ESV may be right. Or they may be very wrong. The NLT may be right, but the Hebrew word qaw does not mean message, it means line or measuring cord. The ESV also changes the primary verb in verse 5, from rejoicing to running. In this particular passage the ESV has made some very difference choices from the rest. There are several possibilities why this is so. One, they may have access to better manuscripts or other materials that the older translations did not have. That is possible, but that might also be giving them too much credit. The Septuagint (greek translations of the hebrew text) and the Latin Vulgate also focus on the rejoicing, not the running. Therefore, it is likely that the ESV is not correct in how they have translated this verse.

It's funny that the passage I've chosen happens to be one that the ESV misses, when it is my current favorite translation. I chose this passage because I put a great deal of work into my translation and am very confident in it. Other translations I have done are fast, this one was for a paper and I spent a lot of time trying to get it exactly right.

The goal of every translation is to try to give us the best English approximation of the original meaning of the text. This is a difficult task. Another problem is that every translation includes some of the theology of the translator. We may not like to think that, but it's true. Let's look at an example of this:

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This is a very good translation, IMHO (ESV, by the way). Now, as evangelicals, we don't necessarily like "bruise" because it doesn't sound very bad. The NIV has a more "evangelical friendly" translation:

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Now we have Jesus CRUSHING the serpent's head, and the serpent striking his heel. Now Jesus sounds like the terminator and the serpent sounds impotent.

So, what about the JPS-Tanakh? This is a Jewish translation:

Gen. 3:15 ¶ I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, And you shall strike at their heel.”

Hmmm. Now it sounds a lot more like emnity between the serpent and the nation of israel, and the blows aren't fatal, they are merely attacks.

So what's going on?

Well, first off, the Hebrew word translated as "strike" or "bruise" is Shoof. The only difference between the two spellings is second person or third person. So the NIV is the least accurate of the non- Jewish translations, as it uses two different words. They should be the same, they were in the original text. You can choose strike or bruise, but you should be consistent. They both are in the same verb tenses and stems.

What about the JPS. Is it right?

In a word: No. The verb for "strike/bruise" is 3rd/2nd person masculine singular. In other words: he and you. Likewise, everything about the ownership of heel is singular. They have (in my view) intentionally mistranslated this passage to remove the understanding of this verse as pointing towards Jesus. They have turned singular phrases into plural ones.

So in this case the ESV is the best translation, the NIV is somewhat accurate but misleading, and the JPS is downright misleading. This is why I took the time to study the original languages. Otherwise, how would I really know that the JPS was wrong?

How about this passage?

Ezek. 2:1 ¶ He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” (ESV)

JPS:

Ezek. 2:1 ¶ And He said to me, “O mortal, stand up on your feet that I may speak to you.”

Notice anything? The JPS has translated the Hebrew phrase "ben adam" as "O Mortal" rather than "Son of Man" While this is accurate, the phrase basically means "mortal" they have gone with a less literal translation (ben=son adam=man, hebrew construct = son of man) to obscure the common language with one of the phrases Christ used.

So my point is that the theology of the translator does come into the translation. The goal is to pick a translation that does as little editorializing as possible. Again, I think the ESV is the winner here for accuracy. The Gen 3:15 passage is clearly better in the ESV than in the NIV or JPS. The TNIV does not fix this problem on the part of the NIV, by the way.

Another problem is gender neutrality. This creates huge uproar in evangelical circles.

Here is a great example of the problem:

Rev. 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. (NASB)Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (ESV)Rev. 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (NIV)Rev. 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me. (NET)Rev. 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me. (NRSV)Rev. 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. (TNIV)

Now, the problem here is simple: The translations by the NASB, ESV and NIV are as close to perfect as you can get. They are very accurate translations of the original Greek. But do people reading it understand it? As Christians, we look at this passage and think "Jesus is saying that anyone who responds to His voice will have the opportunity to dine with Him and have Him in their home." The problem is that research has shown that for people who do NOT have a church background, they are more likely to read this verse as applying to men only. Now this is where things get tricky. I can explain in a few minutes the issue of gender usage in the bible, and they will understand that "him" and "he" are generic terms for a person. When they read, they will have to translate this in their head. Or, as a translator, I could try to make this clearer. How would I make this clearer? By removing the "he" and placing a singular gender-neutral pronoun in its place.

The problem is that English does not have a clear, singular gender- neutral pronoun. The closest thing we have is "they" which, by the way, has many singular uses in our culture. For example "A member of our group bought a TV, but they didn't like it so they returned it"

So the NRSV tried to solve the problem without using "they" which COULD be construed as being plural, but they have created a direct second person tense to this verse (you) that is not there, so they have obscured the verse and made, IMHO, an unacceptable sacrifice in accuracy.

The TNIV has, IMHO, the best translation here. But it drives the Evangelicals NUTS because "them" and "they" COULD imply that Jesus will only eat with a group of people, not an individual. This is a valid argument, but not the best one. While it is possible, the terms have a clear singular use in the English language, so the passage does not insist on plural understanding. Because the non-gender neutral pronouns are known to confuse people who do not have Christian backgrounds, it is, again IMHO, the lesser of the evils to have the potential of someone reading this as a plural only event than have a woman or young girl read this as excluding her.

And after all that, who uses the word "Behold!" anymore?

So, hopefully this gives you a basic understanding of some of the issues at hand.

Now, on to the question of which is the best translation... :-)

The best approach is to use more than one translation. Let me give you a caveat: I think when you teach or write, you should try to stick to one translation exclusively unless they mistranslate something. I say this for two reasons. One, it is important to give people the understanding that, for the most part, their bible is accurate. I think when we use ten translations in ten citations we open people up to feeling like they cannot trust their bible or they have no hope of really understanding it unless they are willing to read ten translations simultaneously. Two, it is important that we really look to see what the passage is saying, not look for a translation that supports what we WANT the passage to say. The Genesis 3:15 passage I cited above is a good example of this.

So, understanding that for study you should use more than one translation, but you should publicly try to stick to one, let's evaluate a few translations:

KJV - Yeah, nobody here really thinks they should use this. There are problems with the KJV that are worth understanding though. (1) It is translated from the greek text known as "Textus Receptus" which does not use the best manuscripts, and is quite different than the better greek texts. (2) It is translated without the benefit of the last 400 years of scholarly research. A lot has been learned in those 400 years about the texts, the culture, etc. (3) Very few people understand 400 year old English clearly.

NKJV - A pretty good literal translation that sounds a lot like the verses you might have memorized as a kid, but with better english and no "thees" and "thous" The problem is that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, which doesn't hold a candle to the better modern manuscripts. As a result, some readings can be very different. I like this bible for memorizing, but I don't use it for study or teaching.

RSV - Probably the most popular bible in scholarly circles, this version from the 1950's is very accurate and seems to be reasonably free of bias. The problem is that it's 50 years old, has 50 year old english, and its gender accuracy is confusing to many modern readers without a Christian background.

NRSV - Accepted in scholarly circles, not so popular in churches. Some odd choices made in translation (see rev 3:20 above) and many people accuse it of being "liberal" for translations such as Isaiah 7:14 which translates the Hebrew as "young woman" instead of "virgin." The problem is that both are correct. Remember my point about your theology affecting your translation? Not recommended, there are better choices.

ESV - This was developed as a successor to the RSV (not the NRSV), and I think it offers the current best balance between readability and accuracy. Not perfect. It does attempt to address the gender issue, but footnoting many things such as translations of adelphos as "brothers" but then putting "or brothers and sisters" in the footnotes. The problem, IMHO, is that it doesn't go far enough. The revelation 3:20 passage is a great example of this.

NIV - By _far_ the most popular translation on the market right now. It is not as accurate as the ESV, but is more readable and generally is better english. Problems: It is now over 30 years old, and language has changed. There are some very poorly translated passages (see Hebrews 11:11), It has the same gender issues as the ESV and RSV, but doesn't address them as well as the ESV. The biggest advantage of this translation is that it is well accepted and there are TONS of resources available such as study bibles etc.

TNIV - A good update to the NIV. They fixed almost all of the "problem" passages of the NIV (see Hebrews 11:11 again, there are more but not worth bringing up) and have tried to bring the language into the 21st century. Problems: Still interpretive, and goes too far in gender-neutral language (IMHO). They have obscured key meanings in passages by trying too hard to be gender neutral. This translation has created a HUGE amount of debate, and so it is not a good choice to use in teaching or writing, as it will create a headache for you.

NIRV - A "dumbed down" version of the NIV. Avoid.

Message - This is a great devotional, but I have great concern about considering it scripture. Eugene Peterson is a brilliant man with a great knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but he is only a man. When you read the message you are taking at face value Eugene's interpretations of each passage. Any difficult meanings will be decided for you by Eugene, and if he's wrong, you won't be able to decide that for yourself. This may be a great tool for some, but not for me.

NET - The best part of this translation is the translation notes. They are very helpful in understanding the original language and why passages are translated a certain way. To be honest, I often times do not like their translation, but the notes are awesome. I highly recommend this version, with the notes, for personal study. I would not teach or write from this version.

NLT - This is an attempt to make a "Living Bible" that is not a paraphrase, but a translation. It is very readable and popular for devotions. The problem is that it is very interpretive. A couple of years ago I had a long argument with a friend of mine about a theological issue. We went back and forth, and it ultimately came down to the fact that he was reading a passage in the NLT. At one point he said "You need to read this in the NLT" to which I replied "No, you need to read it in a translation that is accurate!" The end result? The NLT interpretation was wrong. I don't remember the passage anymore, because it was a good natured argument between friends, but it taught me a lesson about the potential danger of highly interpretive translations. I think this is a good translation for personal devotions and study as long as you have another translation handy when you find a passage challenging or saying something different than you thought it did...

God's Word - Not well known, pretty interpretive, doesn't read that well. It's an attempt to be easy to understand, but I think it misses the mark.

NASB95 - Very accurate, not good english, hard to read and memorize. I think this is a great bible to use for personal study, but the language is a bit too cryptic for teaching. It's fine to use for writing, but not necessarily your best choice.

JPS Tanakh - Old Testament Only, obviously. Not a very good translation. I always look at their translations after I have done a Hebrew translation, and the JPS surprises me at how far off it is at times.

New World Translation - Jehovah's Witness version of the bible that is specific to their theology and uses the word "Jehovah" a lot. Interesting, that, since Jehovah is a mistake made by taking the consonants for Yahweh and the Vowels for Adonai and combining them. But I digress. Obviously you want to avoid this one. Not even remotely accurate.

HCSB - This is a translation made by the southern baptists in response to the TNIV. It is very southern baptist. It may be a great translation, but it is going to suffer from the gender confusion issues discussed above. I have no experience with it.

I have no experience with the Catholic translations so I cannot comment on those.

There are many other translations out there. I have only covered a few of the more popular ones. My personal favorite is the ESV. I use it for personal study, for devotions, and for writing. I use the NIV whenever I am writing for HDC, as that is our "official" translation. The ESV is not perfect, however. You saw by my Psalms 19 example that they can mistranslate passages in their interpretation. They also do not go far enough in trying to clarify the gender specific language in the bible.

Honestly, when asked for the perfect bible to give a non-believer I don't have a good answer right now. The ESV is a great tool, but the gender issues might be a problem. The NIV is nice and easy to read but a little out of date and has more gender issues than the ESV. The TNIV goes too far in the quest to clarify gender language and ends up obscuring passages. The NLT is very easy to read but too interpretive, putting too much reliance on someone else's understanding.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we have so many translations. I think we still need another...

If you asked me for the perfect bible to give to a non-Christian I would probably go with either the TNIV or the NLT, and then down the road introduce them to the ESV, but I don't like those options. And so I keep studying :-)